Shame on you, Gary Kamiya. How can you possibly write an article purporting to place the American psyche on a couch over the issue of impeachment, yet fail to mention the fact that Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio introduced Articles of Impeachment against Dick Cheney weeks ago in the U.S. House of Representatives?

You were on the right track in the first several paragraphs of what turns out to be nothing more than a bloviating piece of pop-psychoanalytical tripe, when you touched on the Democrats' political conservatism (read: timidity) as an "opposition" party.

Instead of veering off into some allegory of the cave explanation for why criminals remain in charge of the executive branch, take the feed from your colleague Glenn Greenwald and consider the corrupt and unholy symbiosis between the political and media elites in this country.

We're not cowering in fear at the feet of the guy with the biggest club on the battlefield, we're being sold down the river by a cabal of wealthy, privileged white men from both parties and ion the boardrooms of every media conglomerate with a U.S. corporate charter.

Meanwhile, a true partiot with real courage such as Dennis Kucinich, someone who actually understands the meaning of public service and who has some real historical perspective on the value of the fuzzy concepts that lie at teh foundation of our contitution and -- ho, ho -- our way of Life, gets completely ignored by hacks like you.

God help us all...

The funny thing - or not so funny, really - is Mr. Gore could have been elected in 2000 if he'd run a campaign based on things he knew and believed then, which were also the things Americans needed to know and understand seven years ago.

If he plays his cards right this time, he can win in a walk. And Americans, being the good-hearted, forgiving souls we are, won't hold onto much bitterness toward him for the incredible violations and depradations we've suffered under the Bush administration.

But in reality, Mr. Gore bears a measure of responsibility for the mess we're in today.

Mr. Manjoo hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that when Google scans a book, it is not reducing anyone's access to the work. Anyone can still go to the library, or to Amazon, or Ebay, or -- heaven forfend -- to their local, independently-owned bookstore and obtain a copy for purchase or borrowing.

Mr. Charkin, on the other hand, sought to make his point by engaging in an act of conversion, which any reasonably educated Brit like himself ought to know has been a settled principle of law since at least the 19th century, and makes it an actionable tort anytime someone deprives another of possession of their personal property.

The rub, however, lies in whether anyone is damaged by another's act. Can publishers like Mr. Charkin show their intellectual property rights are or may be damaged by Google's book-scanning activities? Can Google show it was damaged by Mr. Charkin's conversion of their laptops?

As we say on the playground, no harm, no foul...

Seems to me forever known as and AncientAssyrian are both far more interested in preventing Google from making money than in assuring rightful compensation to copyright owners.

In the scenarios laid out by each of them, copyright holders will rack up royalties they might not otherwise realize but for Google's posting of snippets of the copyrighted work.

I am a songwriter and would love to have Google post snippets of my work on the web if it means people might go and buy my record elsewhere on line. The fact Google might also realize a commission on the transaction means nothing to me.

No American President has played so small on the world's stage as has #43. The man is diminutive in every way.

I just have to say I think you're off the mark on this one, Farhad.

I'll allow the question of the current era's fallowness with respect to visual art may be open for debate -- there are certainly compelling things coming out of the world of animation these days, for one -- but I think Mr. Hockney is onto something with his suspicion that the personal media device is having a destructive effect on people's ability to see beyond themselves to the world outside their immediate personal space.

Deleterious effects on the culture of creativity stem less from any conscious choice to prefer sound over sight than they do from the effects of choosing to wrap oneself in the cocoon of a personal soundtrack while moving through public space, or to drink the kool-aid of total sensory abdication by choosing to sit in front of the TV for hours on end at home and on the road.

When the sum total of one's stimulation is so heavily skewed toward internalizing its effects, it's no wonder we might perceive a certain dearth in the quality and quantity of sophisticated or interesting outward expressions of creativity.

On a separate note, regarding your skepticism of Mr. Hockney's theories about the Old Masters' use of camera lucida techniques, have you ever actually observed, say, a modern muralist at work? I'll side with Mr. H on this question until you can give me a compelling reason why the OMs wouldn't have used any such technique at their disposal.

It would be notable if Hillary Clinton were not the consumate political professional by now.

The real questions are: how much change does the electorate desire and how much change does our survival and prosperity require?

If we only need to shift our bearings by degree, she's probably just as good or slightly better than McCain or Thompson.

But let it not be said that her candidacy heralds any kind of momentous sea-change from the policies and preferences of the Bush administration.

The greatest distinctions between George W. Bush and William Jefferson Clinton have been those of intelligence and competence.